2 meter rule ... ranting on FB

[araytx]

Perhaps what the OP originally is looking for is that "...if it's a rule it's a rule for all, and if not then it's not...". The only reason the 2m O.B. "rule" is even talked about now is that a) it's still used some places and more importantly b) is WAS a rule at one time. If it never was it would never be talked about. Presently I (as a mythical TD) could evoke a 1.5m O.B. rule if I wished - as long as all participants knew of it beforehand, etc. And this goes for all the other things mentioned by David, Josh, etc. I'm thinking that since local rules can be added to any "situation" (tournament or casual) - some probably needing the PDGA's OK and some not (depending on sanctioning) - the OP is looking for the rules to be written in such a way as to ONLY mention those that are ALWAYS in effect...and let non-rules be evoked per the TD, etc. This may or may not be a tough nut to crack.

It may not have been officially listed as "O.B." but I've heard it dozens of times by dozens of TDs over the years - "If your disc comes to rest 2m above the playing surface you're O.B. Mark directly beneath the disc, then get your disc down and proceed with play from there...with a stroke penalty". THEY (the TDs) always mentioned it as "O.B." (right or wrong - but perception IS reality). So, to them, ANYTHING over 2m above the playing surface WAS an O.B. territory...and if your disc was up there, YOU were O.B. May not have been it 'technically' but it COULD have been (remember, TDs can call anything they want O.B.). And of course it gets back to the discussion of dg NOT having different 'penalty situations' (as does bg) such as O.B., hazard, lateral hazard, lost ball, etc.

I think it would be simpler if they did away with mentioning it altogether IF they (the PDGA) wished to NOT have it (and let the TDs who do want it request a waver...for a 2m, 1.5m, bears are off-limits, and any other arcane / weird "rule" they wish to evoke). In bg, they used to play and have in the rules the concept of "stymie". It no longer is in the rule book because they don't play that any more. Etc.

Just because some TDs say that doesn't make it so. Recall that a shot coming to rest out-of-bounds has three options for the next throw to be taken from, whereas a shot determined to be more than 2m above the playing surface when the 2m-rule is in effect, only has one option. They are not the same.

And no, I do not think a TD can state that is arbitrarily OB is anything over 1.5m off the ground is OB, or 3m off the ground or anything like that. For this type of deviation he'd have to get special permission from the tour manager, which, by definition, doesn't make it as the TD's discretion.

 

[brutalbrutus]

If above the 2 meter "line" is OB, then the last point in-bounds would be the last time the disc in motion/flight was at 1.99m or less, would it not? Unless the disc bounced straight up from the ground to end up in a tree, directly below the disc would not be the last place it was "in-bounds".

If a disc suspended over 2 meters was supposed to be considered/called out of bounds, the rule would be part of the OB rule. Separate rules mean it's not the same thing. Calling it such is wrong. This has nothing to do with me. Rules are rules. Let's not confuse and conflate them.

If the disc isn't OB until it comes to rest above 2m, wouldn't the last place it was "in bounds" be basically a millimeter from where it came to rest?

 

[JC17393]

If the disc isn't OB until it comes to rest above 2m, wouldn't the last place it was "in bounds" be basically a millimeter from where it came to rest?

Wouldn't that same logic have to apply to all OB then? Technically no disc is OB until it comes to rest, so apparently last inbounds should always be 1mm from where it comes to rest.

Or, you know, above 2m is not OB at all.

 

[Steve West]

Wouldn't that same logic have to apply to all OB then? Technically no disc is OB until it comes to rest, so apparently last inbounds should always be 1mm from where it comes to rest.

Or, you know, above 2m is not OB at all.

Even if the last inbounds is 1mm from where the disc came to rest, the lie is marked "up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds..."

I think the disc can cross into out-of-bounds way before is comes to rest and becomes OB.

And a disc above 2m is not OB (unless it is within an OB area).

 

[EricW]

Just putting it out there after hearing so many points about how it affects play, that the 2-meter rule also protects trees by discourages players from getting into them.

I play mostly on a course with scattered medium-sized junipers which, like many other tree species, have low branches. So many players have zero respect for the trees (despite hating courses without them). Players bend and break branches even the trunk on small trees, strip off bark, leaves, and needles just to get a disc down or try to make some hero shot from an obstructed look. Have even seen players take out bad-shot frustration on the trees. Most damage comes from competitive players; rec players just take a free drop out of the tree without thinking it.

So what do we do in the case that play from within or under the tree typically harms the course? (asking nicely doesn't work)
Free drop out of tree is tricky to implement and unfair to players that stay out of trees
No penalty doesn't protect the trees at all
2-meter penalty discourages tree shots but no always fair (lucky disc drops down)
Make all lies "under" the tree OB seems way too harsh

 

[DavidSauls]

How does that work?

Without the rule, you take a drop under the disc, without a penalty stroke, and get your disc out of the tree.

With the rule, you take a drop under the disc, with a penalty stroke, and get your disc out of the tree.

What difference does the rule make?

Nor does it keep discs out of the tree in the first place. The inherent penalty in hitting a tree---stopping the flight of the disc, reducing distance of the throw, and probably resulting in a bad lie---should be sufficient that players aren't deliberately or nonchalantly throwing into trees. It's hard to imagine the slight chance of a penalty stroke making a difference.

 

[EricW]

David,
I think it makes people more scared of the trees and be more careful. Dont you think?

Not as fearful as an OB line. Players are definitely scared of and play away from OB.

But you're absolutely right. Once they're in the tree it makes no difference unless you mandate a drop out (free drop or by OB). Free drop takes teeth out of the course; trees OB is harsh and difficult to judge.

 

[DavidSauls]

David,
I think it makes people more scared of the trees and be more careful. Dont you think?

Not as fearful as an OB line. Players are definitely scared of and play away from OB.

No. Well, with the possible exception of certain species of trees, like cedars and junipers.

The tree has to catch a significant percentage of throws for the rule to be a deterrent. If it only catches 1% of the discs thrown into it, then the rule doesn't affect a player's decision. No one's saying to himself, "I'll risk all the other bad effects of hitting a tree, but throw in a 1% chance of a penalty stroke, and I'm changing my mind."

Unlike O.B., which penalizes a high percentage of shots that land there.

On my home course, I'll bet that the catch rate is less than 1%. And, believe me, I throw into a lot of trees.

 

[EricW]

Hadn't thought about percentages that low as a good judge of fairness to the rule. Even these junipers are probably 10% at best. A round almost always has one or two "is this 2-meters?" questions come up. Lots of suspended discs in the lower branches, so if intent is to keep players out then why 2 meters + only.

Just glanced through a stack of tourney score cards where 2-meters in effect, and there aren't a ton of "P"s on them. Players aren't great about writing that down though.

Thumbers and other intentional sky shots come down more often than soft gliding shots so that's probably not fair.... hmmm.

Maybe it would be easier, fairer, and get the point across better to say "intentionally breaking a branch is a DQ".

 

[EricW]

The rule has can lead to sweet nickname though. Everyone knows "2-meter Dave". Guess how tall he is.

 

[Steve West]

Hadn't thought about percentages that low as a good judge of fairness to the rule. Even these junipers are probably 10% at best. A round almost always has one or two "is this 2-meters?" questions come up. Lots of suspended discs in the lower branches, so if intent is to keep players out then why 2 meters + only.

Just glanced through a stack of tourney score cards where 2-meters in effect, and there aren't a ton of "P"s on them. Players aren't great about writing that down though.

Thumbers and other intentional sky shots come down more often than soft gliding shots so that's probably not fair.... hmmm.

Maybe it would be easier, fairer, and get the point across better to say "intentionally breaking a branch is a DQ".

It's in there, hidden in "The Lie" section.

803.01 Obstacles And Relief
...
E. A player who purposely damages any part of the course shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning. The player may also be disqualified from the tournament, in accordance with Section 3.3 of the Competition Manual.

3.3 Player Misconduct
A. The PDGA adopts a strict policy of appropriate behavior and comments to the media. Any conduct deemed to be unprofessional is subject to disqualification by the Tournament Director, and may also be subject to further disciplinary actions from the PDGA.
B. Players are expected to behave in a professional and sportsmanlike manner while participating in a PDGA sanctioned event. Actions that are in violation of this conduct include but are not limited to:
...
(4) Willful and overt destruction, abuse or vandalism of property, including animal and plant life.

And, this one usually applies because parks often have laws against damaging plants.

(7) Activities which are in violation of Federal, State or Local laws or ordinances, park regulation or disc golf course rule. Directors are granted the discretion to disqualify a player based on the severity of the offending conduct. An official warning of disqualification may be issued by a director where appropriate.

 

[JC17393]

Maybe it would be easier, fairer, and get the point across better to say "intentionally breaking a branch is a DQ".

I would think the rule already in existence that calls for an instant two-throw penalty without a warning for intentionally breaking/damaging a branch is a far greater deterrent than a low percentage chance of a one-throw penalty for being suspended.

803.01 Obstacles and Relief
E. A player who purposely damages any part of the course shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning. The player may also be disqualified from the tournament, in accordance with Section 3.3 of the Competition Manual.​

 

[araytx]

Dumbest........rule..........ever

Don't....... really........ like it......................huh?

If above the 2 meter "line" is OB, then the last point in-bounds would be the last time the disc in motion/flight was at 1.99m or less, would it not? Unless the disc bounced straight up from the ground to end up in a tree, directly below the disc would not be the last place it was "in-bounds".

If a disc suspended over 2 meters was supposed to be considered/called out of bounds, the rule would be part of the OB rule. Separate rules mean it's not the same thing. Calling it such is wrong. This has nothing to do with me. Rules are rules. Let's not confuse and conflate them.

If the disc isn't OB until it comes to rest above 2m, wouldn't the last place it was "in bounds" be basically a millimeter from where it came to rest?

We are talking about something like a big 300+ foot spike Hyzer off the tee, that is being aimed at that big Cedar near the basket and comes down right over the basket in that Cedar that catches about 70% of the discs that hit. That's not really first "OB over 2 meters a millimeter from where it comes to rest" see?

...

Nor does it keep discs out of the tree in the first place. The inherent penalty in hitting a tree---stopping the flight of the disc, reducing distance of the throw, and probably resulting in a bad lie---should be sufficient that players aren't deliberately or nonchalantly throwing into trees. It's hard to imagine the slight chance of a penalty stroke making a difference.

This rule is regional because of foliage and types of trees. I literally play on courses that were originally designed with the 2m rule in mind. I'll get to later why it should be only applied inside the 10m-circle but that's the main problem with the rule. If it were properly applied there'd be less problem with it.

I'd like to see the 2m-rule utilized by TD's when appropriate, which is most likely only on certain holes with trees which catch discs near the basket. THAT is what shouldn't be rewarded and deserves the penalty ... and only that above 2m. The mid-fairway shot that catches a tree, whether flukily or not, has already been penalized by the loss of distance. But where I live, there are at least 10 holes I can think of on local courses, where players aim for the tree by the basket, with no touch whatsoever, because that's the easy deuce when there's no 2m-rule. That's how it should apply if done properly. But I know I'm making a losing argument, because my argument is logical and neither side agrees with me -- emotionally.

 

[JC17393]

I'd like to see the 2m-rule utilized by TD's when appropriate, which is most likely only on certain holes with trees which catch discs near the basket. THAT is what shouldn't be rewarded and deserves the penalty ... and only that above 2m. The mid-fairway shot that catches a tree, whether flukily or not, has already been penalized by the loss of distance. But where I live, there are at least 10 holes I can think of on local courses, where players aim for the tree by the basket, with no touch whatsoever, because that's the easy deuce when there's no 2m-rule. That's how it should apply if done properly. But I know I'm making a losing argument, because my argument is logical and neither side agrees with me -- emotionally.

I agree with you, for what it's worth.

 

[JoakimBL]

If it's an easy deuce, throwing into the tree, then isn't it just poor design to begin with? Even with 2 meter rule, if the tree catches less than 50%, it's probably still the correct play.

 

[biscoe]

I'd like to see the 2m-rule utilized by TD's when appropriate, which is most likely only on certain holes with trees which catch discs near the basket. THAT is what shouldn't be rewarded and deserves the penalty ... and only that above 2m. The mid-fairway shot that catches a tree, whether flukily or not, has already been penalized by the loss of distance. But where I live, there are at least 10 holes I can think of on local courses, where players aim for the tree by the basket, with no touch whatsoever, because that's the easy deuce when there's no 2m-rule. That's how it should apply if done properly. But I know I'm making a losing argument, because my argument is logical and neither side agrees with me -- emotionally.

That is what we do at Loriella. There are 2 trees on the entire course that we use the rule for and both are large cedars within 50 feet of the basket.

 

[Star Shark]

It's about people using trees as backstops. The 2m rule prevents that. Granted, you can get lucky and fall out of said tree but do you wan to bet a stroke on that?

 

[JoakimBL]

It doesn't prevent that at all. It may of may not add a stroke to your score. If the alternative way is more dificult, that is also potentially adding a stroke. If it's a guaranteed 2 using the tree w/o 2 meter rule, it's a guaranteed 3 with it, with a potential for an easy 2.
If it's an easy 2 without using the tree, then there really is no point either way.

 

[araytx]

If it's an easy deuce, throwing into the tree, then isn't it just poor design to begin with? Even with 2 meter rule, if the tree catches less than 50%, it's probably still the correct play.

Let me give you a more complete picture. No I don't think it's poor design because this course was designed when the 2-meter rule was in play. The hole is in designed with a clean but wooded fairway line to the basket, and there are not other direct routes. But the tree above the tee box has died, and now there's a way to "avoid" the way the course was designed and throw a big spike up and over, right into a cedar tree that's 20 feet past the basket -- since TDs feel obligated not to use the 2-meter rule. And I think I'm being generous saying 70% because whenever I practice that shot, the thick cedar seems to catch 90% of my throws.

It doesn't prevent that at all. It may of may not add a stroke to your score. If the alternative way is more dificult, that is also potentially adding a stroke. If it's a guaranteed 2 using the tree w/o 2 meter rule, it's a guaranteed 3 with it, with a potential for an easy 2.
If it's an easy 2 without using the tree, then there really is no point either way.

So, the difference is that the deuce percentage goes way up without the 2 meter rule. The way that cedar catches everything, with the 2-meter rule your odds of getting a deuce are much better going through the woods as designed than taking the up & over. Yes, it changes and yes it's a good design with.

 

[JoakimBL]

This hole was designed with a tree above the teebox, that you say has died and opened up a new route. So it has nothing (or very Little) to do with the 2 meter rule, and more to do with a dead tree. Then the 2 meter rule is a lazy alternative to redisgning the hole and move the tee and/or basket.

That said, a tree that catches 90% is an acceptable use of the 2 meter rule, as that percentage is high enough to not make it a random penalty. I still think that a design that doesn't need the 2 meter rule is better. But that is obviously just my opinion.